December 20, 2013

May I Point Out That Phil Robertson Was Indisputably Right About One Thing?

No, I'm not talking about his observation on the relative merits of a woman's vagina and a man's anus. I'm talking about this, which is really central to what Robertson was trying to say.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong... Sin becomes fine,” he said. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Don't get caught up in the exact wording -- read between the lines. What Robertson is saying is that when we start declaring that which is sinful to be socially acceptable and therefore normalized, then it won't be too long until we move on to the next normalization of the next sin by society -- and the declaration that refusal to embrace the reclassification of sin as acceptable becomes socially unacceptable. Forget bestiality (at least for the moment) and just look at that which has been in the news over the last week or so.

The Supreme Court made gay sex a civil right about a decade ago in Lawrence v. Texas -- and last week we had a federal judge in Utah use that decision and others to normalize polygamy. Now he didn't legalize bigamy per se, at least not in the sense that that some combination of three or more individuals can go down to the local courthouse and get a group marriage license. But what the judge did was declare that as a matter of law it is acceptable for a polyamorous group to set up a household and declare themselves to be in a committed marital relationship. After all, if marriage no longer means one man and one woman, what logical basis is there for limiting marriage to only two people. It was not long before we heard that one state, North Dakota, is open to issuing a marriage license to marry someone of the opposite sex despite their having a marriage license and having married someone of the same sex in another state (a marriage not recognized in North Dakota. What we would then have is, potentially, legalized polyamorous marriages And to think that a decade ago it was declared to be the height of bigotry to suggest that recognizing gay marriages would lead to the legalization of plural marriages.

Then, of course, there is the decision of an Italian court last week that held that a sexual relationship between 60-year-old Italian man and a 11-year-old girl in his custody is not criminal. Why on earth not, age of consent notwithstanding? Because the pair profess to be in love with one another, and the fact that it is a romantic relationship makes it OK. And don;t you dare object, you hateful bigot -- who are you to judge who and how people love? How long until judges citing foreign law declare that there is a constitutional right to intergenerational sex?

And this morning's news brought us reports from just north of the border in Canada -- there is a right to engage in prostitution! Notice that this is not a case of legalizing the world's oldest profession -- it is a declaration that there is an affirmative right to engage in commercial sexual activity. This will, the judges reason, improve the lives of "sex-worker" -- and besides, it's just plain unacceptable for the majority of society to impose its uptight sexual values on pimps, madams, streetwalkers, and ladies of the evening?

My point? Society has rejected the traditional morality of days gone by -- a morality that had its roots in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. As a result there has been an incremental societal acceptance of that which would traditionally be labeled sinful by the church and a violation of the law by the state, especially as courts have come to frame the change in terms of rights (rights which prior generations would never have recognized and would have explicitly repudiated). What is instead declared to be beyond the pale is even expressing the views that have been historically taught by both church and state, based upon Scripture. And since these changes are framed in terms of rights, the state will force you to act contrary to your firmly held religious beliefs, declaring it to be a part of the price of citizenship. The new tolerance declares that the old faith is the only thing that will not be tolerated.

No, Phil Robertson nailed it in that interview that resulted in his firing -- and because he did, he must be destroyed. Just as the modern notion of diversity means everyone thinking the same, the new tolerance dictates that there be no tolerance for dissenting views.

Trackback Information for May I Point Out That Phil Robertson Was Indisputably Right About One Thing?

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/284488
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'May I Point Out That Phil Robertson Was Indisputably Right About One Thing?'.

Comments on May I Point Out That Phil Robertson Was Indisputably Right About One Thing?

People, such as yourself, who point out these truths, are enemies of the revolution. Until you become a fruitcake you are a bigot/racist/ greedy/insert your Marxist insult here.

The fruitcakes are beyond reason, beyond normal conventions, because they have choosen to do so. Being beyond the pale, we should bell them to warn folk of their approach, much as lepers were belled. It would also alert their buddies of a chance for a quickie.

MuNuviana

Licensing

Powered By

Administrative Stuff

Advertising Disclosure

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.Amazon.com Widgets